As a ci�zen of Cota�, I would like to request that all monies paid to Robert Smith be reimbursed to the City from June 2023 to the present, as Atorney Smith violated CA Professional Rules of Conduct Rule 3.7 Lawyer as witness. All monies received by Mr. Smith are ill-goten, unethical and should be disgorged and returned to the ci�zens of Cota�.
Numerous �mes since the hearings began in November 2023, the Administra�ve Law Judge has referred to Mr. Smith as an atorney. In the July 2024 hearing, Mr. Smith was referred to early on by the ALJ as an atorney, and yet, Mr. Smith also took the stand as a witness. This is against the California Bar Rules of Professional conduct, Rule 3.7. There was no writen consent by the City as required for him to act as a witness. Addi�onally, Mr. Smith has repeatedly provided legal advice to the council, i.e. he wrote the Administra�ve Code in 2019 that governs the Administra�ve hearing process, where now he has tes�fied as a witness.
I would like to remind the council that the council has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers and ci�zens of Cota� to priori�ze the interests of the public good and ci�zens and taxpayers most of all. This would include the use of monies that are unethically and ill-goten by Mr.
Smith for viola�ng repeatedly CA Professional Rules of Conduct Rule 3.7. In California, the principle that an atorney who violates a disciplinary rule may be discharged for cause and forfeit their fees is a well-established part of the law. This is based on the fiduciary rela�onship, and the idea that an atorney's breach of that trust undermines the value of their services. A California atorney who has been discharged for cause due to an ethical viola�on may be denied all or part of the fees for services rendered, even if the services were otherwise valuable to the client.
Who knows the amount of monies that have been provided to Mr. Smith as ill-goten. Me.
I suggest you hire me to complete this disgorgement of public monies, as I am the most informed to do so.
As a taxpayer and ci�zen of Cota�, I demand that these ill-goten monies be returned to the ci�zens of Cota� where they righ�ully belong to provide services for the ci�zens.
Rule 3.7 Lawyer as Witness
(Rule Approved by the Supreme Court, Effec�ve November 1, 2018) (a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness unless:
(1) the lawyer’s tes�mony relates to an uncontested issue or mater; (2) the lawyer’s tes�mony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or
(3) the lawyer has obtained informed writen consent* from the client. If the lawyer represents the People or a governmental en�ty, the consent shall be obtained from the head of the office or a designee of the head of the office
PUBLIC COMMENT
by which the lawyer is employed.
(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm* is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by rule 1.7 or rule 1.9